RCMP Cracking Down On Internet Music Piracy 13
Sydney Weidman writes: "CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) Radio Arts in Canada is reporting that the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) are cracking down on internet music piracy, beginning with a pair of arrests in Quebec. This is the first time I have heard of such action in Canada. As usual, Canadian authorities are always eager to "harmonize" enforcement policies with their cronies south of the 49th parallel. Canada is no longer a sovereign nation, I think. It is, as I once heard a New Yorker say "a large suburb of Detroit". I was hoping Canada might take a more enlightened approach to protecting constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, but apparently it is not to be. The link to the story can be found here."
Jab at Canadians? (Score:1)
The grammar nazi originally grew up in the Detroit area. Between the ages of 19 and 21, I've frequented Canadian bars where the drinking age is a very convenient 19+ years.
During some shopping trips to Canada to buy music CDs I've noticed that they seem to worry a lot more about cassette tape reproduction. Every tape I've seen has a sticker on it reminding people that illegal reproduction of music is akin to murder, rape, and treason. Perhaps this strong approach that Canadians took with cassette tapes carries over to online media.
RCMP is all bark and little bite (Score:1)
They were also known to track down pirate BBS'es (oh the nostalgia!) and just come knocking on your door on a sunny day. They wouldn't even come inside. They'd just stand there and tell you they think you're running a warez board, and run off to the nearest Dunkin Donuts. They knew it would scare the 16 yr old l33+ w4r3z d00dz shitless and they'd format, wipe, and demagnetize every single disk that same afternoon. The funny thing is that it worked most of the time (at least from what I had heard back then). My guess is that this "illegal music" crackdown is just the same. They just expose a few small-timers, make a big show and stick their heads on CBC News (which is mostly owned by the government btw), and convince 9 people out of 10 that [drugs|mp3|sex] is bad.
Why do they do this ? I really don't know, maybe because dragging someone in court costs a nasty sum to an already suffering economy.. or maybe because they want to keep our image of a "nice, pleasant country". This is just speculation though. We all know government usually works in the most anti-logical ways, if only to fuck with our heads.
Interesting. (Score:2)
Ordinary copyright in the UK doesn't attract the attention of criminal law enforcement agencies. Counterfeiting of goods, being a rip-off of the consumer (apparently people who pay good money for a designer label/perfume/what-have-you want a real sense of smug self-satisfaction, not a fake one) does get the Trading Standards people (not police, although they work with police support) all antsy.
Providing acknowledged knock-offs of software doesn't attract criminal enforcement though, breach of copyright being a civil matter over here.
What they do do, though, is run a fairly low-key ad campaign to point out that the profits of bootlegging get used to finance drug dealing and the sodomising of kittens and other family pets - I exaggerate only slightly - and as such responsible people shouldn't get involved.
Re:Jab at Canadians? (Score:1)
Anyways, under Canadian law there is a tariff on blank cassettes and recordable CDs that is supposed to cover SOCAN fees (Society of Canadai artists and something or other - they collect royalties) for any music you may put on there.
Understandably, some people don't find this to be quite right. What if I record my personal data onto a recordable CD? I'm paying for the music. What if I back up my VIC20 onto a cassette tape? I'm paying for the music.
Traser - about 15% of my MP3s are legal
Scare Tactic (Score:1)
Re:Interesting. (Score:1)
Yep, genuinely seen that one. I wouldn't have thought that drug dealing was a loss making business.
Re:Interesting. (Score:2)
It is if you're creaming the profits off to buy terrorist weapons, which is the other bit of agitprop they frequently add to the mix.
Since you're money is far more likely to be used to finance the killing of innocent bystanders if you invest it in one of the big four clearing banks (eg by way of the account your salary goes into), I find it difficult to be concerned.
What Constitution? (Score:2)
I hate to point out the inherent hypocrisy of the article, which assumes that Canadian government should defend American rights, but in a more enlightened manner. There is no "Constitution" in Canada; nothing like what the States has, anyhow. And if there were, it would have a very different idea of what it considers basic rights. Anyway, Canada has always been trying to oppose music piracy (e.g. Canadian recordable media levy tax) -- just that nobody cared or noticed until it became an issue in the States.
Re:The RCMP perhaps should better spend their time (Score:1)
The one we brought home in 1982 (Score:2)
There is no "Constitution" in Canada; nothing like what the States has, anyhow.
Check your facts. From 1867 to 1982, the Canadian Constitution was the British North America Act. That is, it was the act that Britain passed which made Canada a Dominion. It lived in London, and therefore any changes to it had to be made by the British Parliament. For example, in 1929 Nellie McClung et al. had women declared as persons under the law by going to London and arguing before the Privy Council.
In 1982, Prime Minsister Pierre Trudeau brough the Canadian constitution home to Canada, under the Constition Act which meant that we could change and rewrite it without the approval of the British Parliament. This Act, [justice.gc.ca] plus the subsequent amendments and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms make up the Canadian Constitution.
And if there were, it would have a very different idea of what it considers basic rights.
You're both right and wrong. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms [justice.gc.ca] (written in 1982) is actually quite similar to the Bill of Rights -- partly because it took a lot of its ideas FROM the Bill of Rights. There are some key differences, however:
So Sydney is NOT asking the Canadian Government to defend American rights in a more enlightened manner, he's asking them to defend OUR rights, in a more enlightened manner. Which makes sense since (IMHO) our rights were granted to us in a more enlightened manner. (Mind you, we had 200 years of the American example to learn from.) There is no inherent hypocracy in the article.
The only thing that annoys me more than Americans who spout off incorrect garbage about Canada are Canadians who spout off incorrect garbage about Canada.
RCMP (Score:1)
sulli
The Anti-Piracy Police (Score:1)
http://www.rcmp.ca/html/graphics/charge.jpg [www.rcmp.ca]
sulli
Hopefully you're not in Cdn Constitutional Law. (Score:1)
Such as yourself? I am Canadian and I take umbrage to the inflammatory claims that you make in your post.
The following comment describes what actually happened when Trudeau decided he wanted to 'repatriate' a constitution for Canada:
And the fact that all courts in Canada are appointed effectively removed the power from the people and placed it in the hands of the bureaucracy. Consider, for a moment, what this would entail when legislation is passed that the courts consider 'wrong'. They now have a full veto - and they are never accountable to the people.
This is why many in the United States point to Canada when they are concerned about eroding freedoms and the suspension of rights in America. We are a perfect example of what will happen to the U.S. if the citizens do not continue to watch their governing powers like a hawk. Fortunately, the government in the U.S. has far more checks and balances.
As far as I am concerned, the fact that the American Constitution makes it extremely hard to remove free speech (in that it was written from the opposite perspective as the Canadian Constitution) is the reason that the U.S. has the most truly democratic Constitution in the world.
And this statement of yours also conveys the sad truth about the condition of Canada in general:
I think that says it all. The American Constitution was formed by a group of Revolutionaries with a violent declaration of what they believed that they were worth. They knew what living underneath an oppressive government meant, and they constructed the nation with all of its checks and balances because they did not want America to turn out that way.
Therefore, if America began with that bang, then Canada began with a whimper. For we timidly said 'Um, we would like to start a country' and then "our rights were granted to us".
Unfortunately, our "enlightened" view of the world includes having a huge bureaucracy legislate every detail of society, because we didn't start the country by breaking free from an oppressive regime. We brought it with us. And it granted us whatever rights that it saw fit.
Take notice, citizens of the United States. Watch the U.K., Canada and Australia if you would like to see 'democratic' ineptitude in action. And make sure that it doesn't happen to you...
Sarge